The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete. the wub "?!" 14:54, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Category:Leyland DAF (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Leyland DAF was a company created to merge Leyland and DAF trucks. It existed for a very short period. The category is empty after articles that had been added were correctly recategorized. Category is very minor and serves little useful purpose. RXUYDC 00:00, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, exactly as per RXUYDC. -- de Facto (talk). 08:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Public corporations in India into Category:Companies of India

• Merge, unless "public corporation" has a special meaning in India which justifies the creation of a special category. That doesn't seem to be the case based on the two articles in this category, but perhaps there is an explanation that Indian readers would take for granted. Wilchett 22:47, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Chancellors to Category:Chancellors (government)

• Rename, This category appears to be meant for people who have had an official government title of Chancellor. But there is also a chancellor in academia (see Chancellor (education) which is the head of a university and is otherwise an unrelated occupation. Recommend changing the name to disambiguate from academia office title. Might also be a good idea to create Category:Chancellors (education) to correspondingly store articles about university chancellors. Dugwiki 21:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Wimstead 09:37, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Are there any other instances of chancellors in education other than university chancellors – or any other (significant) instances of chancellors other than university or government chancellors...?  If not, perhaps keep the present category and create University chancellors...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk)
  • I agree, perhaps even "University heads", since they can also be called rectors and presidents, according to the article. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment In a lot of UK universities (I don't know about elsewhere) the person most would consider the "University head" is the Vice Chancellor (although in some institutions the terms Master, Principal and Rector are used). Are we talking about ceremonial heads or chief executives? Timrollpickering 21:24, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Famous patients to Category:Patients with notable medical histories

• Rename, Per similar previous cfd discussions, the word "famous" is either redundant or ambiguous since all Wiki bios are presumably about notable people. The category name "Famous patients" isn't clear, since it also could mean "celebrities who became ill" (eg. Richard Pryor), but is intended per the description to be "people who are notable due to their illness" (eg. Terri Schiavo) I recommend replacing "famous patients" with something clearer. Dugwiki 20:35, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename or delete. The proposed rename will reduce the risk of over and misuse, but not eliminate it. If there is a majority for deletion, add me to it. Piccadilly 01:23, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Strong delete. Even renamed, the category would be ambiguous and overused. Dr.Who 08:07, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm not sure if the category should be deleted entirely. Each biography article needs at least one category corresponding to the most important, notable feature of that person. So there needs to be a category of some sort to catalog articles about people who are only famous because of their medical condition. Thus if this is deleted, you'll still need an alternative catagorization scheme for these people. Otherwise the only categories they'd probably have would be their birth/death date and place of birth, which tells you nothing about what makes them important. Dugwiki 15:28, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per Dugwiki Wimstead 23:48, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• I'd go with "people" or "persons" rather than "patients," personally (for the same reason it's practice in psychology to refer to people in experiments as "participants" rather than "subjects"). Otherwise support, this is an important category for people like HM (patient) or Phineas Gage who are notable entirely for their medical issues. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 05:27, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• If no consensus, at least rename per nom to remove "Famous"...  David Kernow (talk) 11:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - another category that would be interesting as a list. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - cruft. Not online database of patients. I cannot imagine what this could be useful for. Pavel Vozenilek 23:07, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:16, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Comic book fathers (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

• Delete, Comic-book fannish category of questionable use, and potentially home to hundreds if not thousands of names. Tenebrae 19:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Listify - per nom. Would work better as a list article. Note that a list could also list the names and information about the character's children, something you can't do in a category. Dugwiki 19:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Also, a list could be subdivided by continuity (eg. Marvel continuity characters, DC continuity, etc) Dugwiki 19:40, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. We don't categorize people by this. Too many people are fathers and too many characters have fathers for this to be useful information. Doczilla 20:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC) Changed my mind on listifying. Too many characters are parents for that to be practical. Doczilla 19:42, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and listify. If left it will lead to a category that is large beyond its need. That need is way too small to justify that kind of headache. Stephen Day 21:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and do not waste time listifying. Wikipedia has too many lists of little merit. An article called fatherhood in comics would cover the topic, but would perhaps be original research. Piccadilly 01:24, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Comment this is a subcategory of Category:Fictional parents (which I'm not clear on the value of, but obviously someone wants it) but the "Comic Book mothers" and "Comic Book Fathers" could be merged to Category:Comic book parents. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 02:05, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Reply. As I discovered by following your linked text, Category: Comic book parents no longer exists. Dr.Who 08:09, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
  • Reply it never did. I suggested it because "Mothers" and "Fathers" is a bit much (and against the cat policy on gender-neutral terms) but I think it might be a useful category. There really aren't that many parents in comics that I know of. And a couple share articles, like Richard and Mary Parker. --HKMarksTALKCONTRIBS 15:17, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Either Delete per nom, or Merge to Category: Comic book parents per HKM. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename Australia to Category:Big Brother (Australian TV series), keep the others --Kbdank71 17:13, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Category:Big Brother (Australia) to Category:Big Brother Australia
• Category:Big Brother (UK TV series) to Category:Big Brother UK
• Category:Big Brother (US TV series) to Category:Big Brother US
• Rename, there is no consistency with how these closely related categories are named, and something should be done about that. jd || talk || 18:20, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename there is no need for brackets, or TV series. --Alex (Talk) 19:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep - Big Brother is a well-known phrase that predates the TV series by fifty years. It won't be automatically clear that "Big Brother UK", for example, relates to the TV series. Rename Category:Big Brother (Australia) to Category:Big Brother (Australian TV series) for consistency, and keep the other two as they are. JW 21:12, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename to Category:Big Brother (Australian TV series) as per Jeff Watts above. Dugwiki 21:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all for consistency. — AnemoneProjectors (talk) 22:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Big Brother (Australia) to Category:Big Brother (Australian TV series) and Keep the rest. "TV series" is correct per naming conventions. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename Category:Big Brother (Australia) to Category:Big Brother (Australian TV series) and Keep the rest. "Big Brother UK" sounds like a political vision of where the UK might be going. Timrollpickering 00:58, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename all to Category:Big Brother (Fooian television series). Normally we expand abbreviations. Why should this be an exception? Vegaswikian 18:27, 29 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was merge. the wub "?!" 13:19, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Marvel Comics villains, see related discussion. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:49, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per above. Doczilla 20:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per previous discussion. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was speedied --Kbdank71 19:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Speedy delete, as per recently closed CfD Category:Alleged cults. See Wikipedia:Categories_for_deletion/Log/2006_October_15#Category:Alleged_cults ≈ jossi ≈ t • @ 17:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was redirect. David Kernow (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Redirect to Category:Wikipedia templates, to help people find it. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:56, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I was bold and redirected it. If/when other kinds of templates have one or more categories created for them, I suppose this will need to change. Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:49, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Bush family, duplicate since ancestors are family. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 15:17, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge per nom Dugwiki 16:06, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Piccadilly 01:25, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. As an editor on several of the articles I see no value added by this category, and it is unique on Wikipedia as far as I can tell. --Dhartung | Talk 08:02, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• (Speedy) merge per nom. David Kernow (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy Merge per duplication. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was already deleted. David Kernow (talk) 11:50, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To match the wikipedia naming conventions, I think it should be renamed to Category:Breton composers while it is still fairly new. I have also notified the author on their talk page to do so. Cheers, BNutzer 14:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Speedy rename, and now tagged as such. Note it wasn't tagged for rename. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 16:10, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge or delete Category:Breton Composer instead of renaming it please, since Category:Breton composers has already been created. BNutzer 06:10, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Speedy merge Wimstead 09:38, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:10, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Coastal Ngayarda languages
• Inland Ngayarda languages

Delete: These two categories are based on an outdated classification (that unfortunately is still followed by Ethnologue). So long as people use up-to-date sources when writing articles, nobody is going to put anything in these categories. --Ptcamn 13:38, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per Ngayarda languages. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:09, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Places in Lancashire to Category:Geography of Lancashire Category:Places in Cheshire to Category:Geography of Cheshire

• Rename, so that physical features sit more naturally in the category. Many other English counties already have a "geography of..." category. Hanbrook 12:53, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as a sub-category of Category:Geography of Lancashire, which I've just created. I've been putting 'Places in' categories within the county geog categories I've been creating (eg Category:Places in Cheshire), rather than renaming them as geography, since geog is more than just the towns/places in a county. User|Neddyseagoon 15:58, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep per Neddyseagoon Bluap 21:55, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. Countries don't have "places" categories, and it isn't a helpful term. Wilchett 22:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. "Places" is covers most of geography and is extremely vague (it arguably also covers buildings and structures), which is perhaps why Category:Places does not exist. Category:Places in Cheshire added above and tagged. Piccadilly 01:26, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both both per noms (I think creator meant to have a separate category for settlements, but there seems to be little point in that). Wimstead 09:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both This extra tier is unnecessary. Twittenham 11:05, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge both as per the seeming standard in Category:Geography of England by county. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was no consensus --Kbdank71 17:07, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Thursday Next series to Category:Thursday Next novels

• Rename, "series" of what? RobertG ♬ talk 11:30, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose per Wikipedia:Naming conventions (books)#series. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Oppose; may contain articles about places & people in the series.Pegship 05:30, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:06, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:United States Representatives from Oklahoma into Category:Members of the United States House of Representatives from Oklahoma

• Merge, Redundant. "Members" conforms with all other states. —Markles 10:37, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Wimstead 09:40, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Rename per nom. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge per nom. Valley2city 04:44, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:05, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Category:List Blasians (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Delete. Empty category; category page is a copy of the article List of Blasians. Appears to be a wrong-headed attempt to re-create deleted Category:Blasians. --Paul A 07:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete per nom. David Kernow (talk) 11:51, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete - even if populated, I think it would require citations/references. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete, the list should go as well but that's another discussion. Punkmorten 08:02, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was delete --Kbdank71 17:04, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Delete, per policy against gender based categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete and Merge into Category:Actors by nationality per nom, "actors" covers both men and women. Dugwiki 16:09, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep Because the policy is frankly dumb and inconsistent. We have Category:Women scientists, Category:Women writers, and Category:Women lawyers. Acting, unlike most of these, actually tends to separate by gender. Oscars are given to "Best Actor" and "Best Actresses" as are Emmies, etc. And although it's nice to think so "actor" in most peoples minds means men.--T. Anthony 16:50, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Still for consistency possibly it should be renamed "Female actors by nationality."--T. Anthony 16:51, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Note however that I believe the three categories you mentioned were also all brought up for cfd and the result was "no consensus". It is not a matter of the policy being dumb and inconsistent; it's that in the cases you mentioned the consensus wasn't reached to delete them. It's quite possible that ultimately the categories you mentioned could be deleted down the road if a consensus is reached. Also note that previous "actress" categories have been deleted in cfd. Dugwiki 21:44, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. Still I don't see a problem in having some gendered categories. Especially not with acting where gender often really does matter. The policy as I understand it is that the person identifies as X and that being X is important to their notability. I think with actresses their renown would be different if they were actors i.e. men in acting. Their ability to get certain roles and awards would be altered. This is less true with say Category:Bisexual actors, but I don't see the same discomfort there.--T. Anthony 22:33, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep - Its not really justifiable to have gendered categories in other professions and not acting. We have Category: Female models, Category: Female film directors, Category:Women composers and dozens of others. Gender is a significant distinction in acting because it has a major effect on the types of roles actors can play. As noted above, it is also the basis for eligibility for major awards - Robert de Niro is never going to win a Best Actress Oscar, no matter how hard he tries. JW 21:08, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Is this dislike of "actress" and "actresses" something American...?  As there a number of (first) names that are gender-ambivalent, distinct categories would seem useful...?  Regards, David Kernow (talk) 11:54, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep as per JW and T. Anthony. Although certain categories have no need for gender splits, this one does, and should be kept for conformity. Anthony Hit me up... 14:19, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per nom. I would also be in favour of deleting category:Women, and all such sub-cats. We would be eventually duplicating all categories if we retain them. (Note that Category:Women includes more than just a list of women. It could use some cleaning.) - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete all and merge the separate CfDs into single section please. Splits category that actually makes sense. This should be applied systematically. Pavel Vozenilek 23:09, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Keep: This is just splitting hairs. We have gendered categories for many different things, why not this? If Oscars, Emmys, and Tonys distinguish women from men in awarding them by category (best actor vs. best actress (or "female actor"), then why should we not have this distinction in category here? Valley2city 04:47, 26 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Delete per logic above. Leave a catredirect. Vegaswikian 04:35, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Swedish actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:05, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep as redirect (same applies to those below). Piccadilly 01:29, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per nom, and suggestion above. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. If kept, remame to Category:Swedish actresses. Vegaswikian 04:38, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 17:02, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:British actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 07:01, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per nom, and suggestion above. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. Vegaswikian 04:41, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:Actors, per policy against gender-based categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:32, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Keep for reasons stated above. Although renaming "Female actors" I guess could be acceptable.--T. Anthony 21:39, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• • As above, I'm for merging. However, if kept, I would prefer "actresses" to "female actors" since the former word is much more common and easier for readers to remember. Dugwiki 15:36, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge this and all the subcats. There's no reason to split actors by gender.--Mike Selinker 05:04, 24 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per nom, and suggestion above. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. Vegaswikian 04:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American actors. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:57, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Merge and Redirect per nom, and suggestion above. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. If kept, remame to Category:American actresses. Vegaswikian 04:39, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The following discussion is an archived debate regarding the category above. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was rename/merge as nominated --Kbdank71 16:49, 30 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Merge into Category:American actors, policy against gendered categories. -- ProveIt ^(talk) 06:26, 23 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

• Keep, along with all above similar categories. This is a misapplication of the gender policy at best, as we have several occupations and categories split by gender for purposes of notability and notoriety. Women have fought hard to prove themselves in these fields, and we must recognize them. Anthony Hit me up... 14:22, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect per nom, and suggestion above. - jc37 17:37, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
• Merge and Redirect. Vegaswikian 04:42, 28 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the category's talk page (if any). No further edits should be made to this section.